On November 18 at HLS, Professor John Manning ’85 interviewed Associate Justice Elena Kagan ’86 on the reading of statutes as part of the Antonin Scalia Lecture series at Harvard Law School.
I'm really impressed with Justice Kagan. I don't share her political orientations but she is absolutely brilliant and I learned a great deal from this lecture.
She is a very bad person based on her philosophy. She believes LAWYERS have to rule over men. Good thing about the in coming new justice is that has no philosophy (she said so).
When she talks about transferee, I think it is talking about the FFL, which is not necessarily the one who owns the gun. If I were to buy a gun from a private seller in another state, who does not have an FFL. They would need to transfer the gun to an FFL who would ship to my local FFL and give it to me, doing a background check in the process. This transfer would cost a small fee. So perhaps the law is saying to do a background check on the 2 FFLs in this process? It could also just be the private dealer who is selling using another persons license like an employee of a store where the owner has an FFL. The flip side of the scenario, which she essentially uses seems far too unlikely for me because there is no government control over the buyers intent because they are so detached from an FFL or business that would feel a punishment.
Legislation may pass any law whereas the honourable court will see whether such law has given any problem on the public if any person approach the court that it caused to problem to him.courts are for protection of human rights which are provided by nature by birth and civil rights provided by laws.people have to go through the constitution which will keep him in knowing what are the rights and what is the administration and powers of the government and few other things
The RightStuff All the justices beleive to some extent in a "living" constitution. Its more like, "when did the constitution die?" Thomas voted once to strike down federal child labor laws because the fed is only allowed to regulate interstate commerce which is probably what the framers were thinking, but even scalia voted the other way. Plus there are gaps with regards to legislatures ability to access information that need to be filled in my opinion. Ginsberg and Sotomayer are out of their fucking minds with regard to their "travel ban" vote, but I dont know much about Kagan's opinions frankly
The RightStuff Stare decisis, in my opinion is that past justices added to the constitution as if a living document but we arent allowing it to live anymore. Just how Id interpret it. I didnt say judiciary to have access to information, I meant the legislature. Atm they have no investigative power really. They only know what the executive branch tell them. There is no mechanism where the legislature can investigate because any law enforcement is executive branch
3. Im saying that the travel ban was rightly upheld, but Kagan voted to uphold and she was right, therefore Im not gonna hold it against her. Im not familiar with any of her other votes or opinions unfortunately. 2. In my opinion stare decisis is an admission that the constitution was alive up until recently and that Scalia was honoring it. Thomas is interesting because he wont honor the previous iterations of the living constitution stuff 1. If the senate oversight committee wanted information from an executive branch body like the FBI, they tend to just not give it. When summoned, they will stonewall the committee and not say anything.
The court can declared congress impasse or unconstitutional if passing laws not enforceable or ambiguous or even unconstitutional in case like during 20 years conflict without delare war or deployment soldiers to over stretch in isolated endanger american personnel and american interests or white house and congress can not get together on operations of government in emergency over 180 days
So she’s basically saying she’s giving the statute the benefit of the doubt that it was intelligently designed, to generously assume that Congress isn’t stepping on its own feet
Statutes should never get the benefit of the doubt if it can be said that the law was ambiguous enough to not actually give fair notice to the People subject to the law
Justice Kagan seems so reasonable. I appreciate her commitment to being a textualist. What I cannot understand is how, as a textualist, she somehow sees abortion rights in the Constitution, when there is clearly no abortion rights in the constitution.
Because she's just a textualist, not an originalist. She looks at the text, and the vaguely decides whatever the text means according to what she wants it to mean. Which violates the original purpose of looking at a text. It's breaking the law with constraint. Instead of making up laws by her wishes at will, she look at the text to decide how much she can frame her subjective opinion and wishes into the law. Which is still illegal but it's less outright illegal. It's like instead of committing arms robbery, which is blatantly illegal and wrong, she commits financial frauds, which is much sketchier, leading to people raising less objection unless they're actually smart about it.
@@markarmage3776 You have absolutely zero clue about what you’re saying. Please go back to taking some judicial interpretation courses and better educate yourself.
Congress did a very poor job in determining in statute what records between them and the Executive should be exempted. It’s a poorly written law and does not address the litigation explosion we’ve had in recent years, particularly since the latest amendments (2016?? Grassley??).
How effective of Facebook in near future and biometric control according to FCC and tge Justice Department. Also should Department of Justice belong to surpreme court rather than the Executive branch because in the past president over step by dismiss the Department head of Justice Department is scary for laws enforcers
58:25 Clarify. The one who purchased the gun is the owner of the gun. If that gun owner sells that gun to another person without the new owner registering the gun in his own name and that gun is used in a crime then the owner of the gun will be held as a party to that crime. In addition he can't say he sold it without a bill of sale. Also if he is no longer in possession of the fire arm and did not report that gun missing or stolen to the police then any crime committed with that gun will come back to the gun owner. The sale from a registered gun shop to a person cleared to purchase the gun is a legal transaction. The gun store owner is not liable for what happens to any product after it is lawfully sold. If someone steals a gun from a gun shop and the gun shop does not report the theft and the stolen gun is used in a crime is the only way I can think of where the shop owner would be culpable.
I'm really impressed with Justice Kagan. I don't share her political orientations but she is absolutely brilliant and I learned a great deal from this lecture.
